UseLessHuman:Wow banks sure are in favor of regulations when they can use them as legal justification to obstruct the business of the property they want in an effort to force a sale.

We like to taut our legal system as the best in the world but this is a reminder that it has serious flaws and people, organizations, and governments will never stop trying to exploit the system to further their own goals.

===============

It's not just banks. A retired cop that lives in the next county took great offense that people were parking cars in front of his house. His house is near a doctor's office. It's a public street, and there are no regulations against parking on the street during daylight hours. He would take photos of cars parked too close to his driveway, and then file a citizen's complaint against the motorists. Of course the local municipal court would accept his complaints and fine the drivers for blocking/impeding his driveway. The retired cop had made dozens of complaints like this, until someone who received a summons hired a smart lawyer.

First thing the lawyer did was check the property records. Turns out the driveway was illegally constructed. The cop lacked permits and the variance that was required for such a driveway. According to people who were in court at the time, the ex-cop howled like a scalded cur.

1. Resolve to post negative Yelp and Trip Advisor reviews of boutique hotel when it opens. It's a lot easier to destroy a new business these days than it has ever been before.2. Picket hotel and bank endlessly.3. Make them regret getting involved.

I'm thinking that it should not be that hard to get the place listed as a historic landmark and prevent the bank from making any changes to it

That...is genius. Make is to that the farker is stuck with the old plumbing and wiring for his new wealthy clientele. It should be a big success then.

rugman11:doyner: rugman11: Blame the bank for being dicks, but it sounds like this place was only going to survive with the $13 million in tax credits they were trying to get. The bank fought them on the credits and they folded and sold.

So they wouldn't have gotten their tax credits anyway? That was the bank's entire strategy. They made sure it wouldn't survive.

But the article says the tax credits were for renovations. Why couldn't they just keep the place running as is? Why were the only options tax credits or sell?

jim32rr:FTFA: The women living at the Anna Louise will stay there until a new building for them is finished, in about two years. So what's the problem again?

Did you read the WHOLE article. The problem is that the 'new' place will be in a crappy neighborhood, (crime, etc.)! The house has been there for over a hundred years taking care of the disadvantaged, disenfranchised, etc. and the fact that it wasn't in the crappy part of town helped the residents NOT FALL BACK INTO THEIR OLD WAYS! Gentrification only helps the rich!

Day_Old_Dutchie:It's those neckties that business men wear.It restricts the flow of blood to their brains turning them into soulless, greedy automatons unable to feel any guilt or compassion. The same reason why politicians are such corrupt scum.We'd have a perfect society if neckties were abolished.

A Mayo clinic study of knowledge workers found that neckties resulted in 15% lower productivity. Diminished blood flow was one explanation advanced.

grunthos:Btw, for all the ragers so far about this: Have you ever donated time or money to a battered women's shelter? If not, this guy has done 4 million things more than you have to help these gals.

Well I know I haven't got "forced a woman's shelter into a scummy part of town because I wanted to improve the view from my office" on my list of accomplishments, so I think I've got the leg up here. The taxes I pay (if I'd lived in Cincinnati for instance) help these sorts of organizations, well they usually do unless some dickknot comes along and cockblocks it like Western & Southern Insurance Group CEO John F Barrett did. Did you know he calls the shelter's inhabitants recovering prostitutes? Yah, he did. I think I've got several legs up on him at this point.

What goes around. Eminent domain as a concept was completely mutated into a monstrosity when "blight" was accepted as a cause for condemnation. (I believe the first case was 1975). The government didn't have to buy real estate for conversion to a community park or even a thoroughfare right of way, which arguably helped everyone and was a "public use" as an ordinary man would understand it. No, just the potential for a parcel to yield higher taxes was sufficient reason to seize it and then sell/give it to somebody else. Remember the Kelo decision?

We the People will always ultimately get the government we deserve. [good and hard, to paraphrase Mencken]. I think a lot of this outrage should be secured, though. If a developer who owned a pristine, old-growth seaside tract of 100 acres wanted to build 200 homes on it a lot of farkers (you know who you are) would be demanding the EPA to forbid any profitable use of the land and then stomp the guy's scrotum halfway to Hong Kong without paying him a damned cent. Gotta take the bitter with the sweet if you're gonna play that game.

I think a lot of this outrage should be secured, though. If a developer who owned a pristine, old-growth seaside tract of 100 acres wanted to build 200 homes on it a lot of farkers (you know who you are) would be demanding the EPA to forbid any profitable use of the land and then stomp the guy's scrotum halfway to Hong Kong without paying him a damned cent.

The chances of stopping that would be slim and none, if the developer paid off the right politicians.

I'll say nothing, because these a--holes strike me as the kind of a--holes who troll the internets watching for Comments, Images and other invocations over their role as spawn of Satan and I cannot, right now, afford a trip through the legal system.

That said ... what's burning in your heart and that comment cooking in your brainpan? Up it ten-fold.

Can someone explain to me how anyone can "force" a sale? I mean, if you own the property, and simply refuse to sell no matter the offer, how can anyone take that property? (Except for cases of imminent domain, which this was not.) Can someone explain this to me, please? I'm being serious, by the way.

FormlessOne:This is the world Republicans want for all of us - the best small government money can buy. Can't afford to fight? Well, you're not God's chosen.

When Republicans refer to "small government", they're referring to resources, not size - a "big government" can fight the rich and win, because a "big government" has the resources to do so. A "small government" has little choice but to do what the rich want, because the rich have the resources to ensure that their will is done. This is a lovely example of what Republicans call "small government."

Couple that with "prosperity gospel," and you now know why so many Christians are right-wing - money makes you one of God's chosen. If you're rich, you must be morally superior, because God has given you so much in return for your actions. The bank is clearly on the side of righteousness, and the battered women's shelter clearly on the side of immorality, so the bank feels no shame in calling them "recovering prostitutes" - he's the one, after all, doing God's work, as evinced by his bulging bank account. Besides, a new building in a neighborhood more befitting their lowly station is being provided for them, at their cost - it's as God wills it.

Protesting isn't enough. People need to pull their money out of this bank. Revocation of prosperity is the only tool the rich understand, especially the religious rich.

/if the left wasn't so busy trying to project its own authoritarianism onto the right, they might have been able to things for the better//and if feminists weren't so busy trying to make sure nobody ever says anything offensive on the internet, they might have been able to save the Anna Louise Inn

CornerPocket:What goes around. Eminent domain as a concept was completely mutated into a monstrosity when "blight" was accepted as a cause for condemnation. (I believe the first case was 1975). The government didn't have to buy real estate for conversion to a community park or even a thoroughfare right of way, which arguably helped everyone and was a "public use" as an ordinary man would understand it. No, just the potential for a parcel to yield higher taxes was sufficient reason to seize it and then sell/give it to somebody else. Remember the Kelo decision?

We the People will always ultimately get the government we deserve. [good and hard, to paraphrase Mencken]. I think a lot of this outrage should be secured, though. If a developer who owned a pristine, old-growth seaside tract of 100 acres wanted to build 200 homes on it a lot of farkers (you know who you are) would be demanding the EPA to forbid any profitable use of the land and then stomp the guy's scrotum halfway to Hong Kong without paying him a damned cent. Gotta take the bitter with the sweet if you're gonna play that game.

Go sailing along the East Coast. EPA doesn't do shiat about seaside development. And the Supreme Court has even overturned a zoning board that tried to stop a developer from selling a residential lot that was UNDER WATER at high tide. Spare me your "environmentalists control everything" BS.

/nothing like getting caught in a slick a half-mile offshore...of suntan lotion, from a public beach...

kazikian:Can someone explain to me how anyone can "force" a sale? I mean, if you own the property, and simply refuse to sell no matter the offer, how can anyone take that property? (Except for cases of imminent domain, which this was not.) Can someone explain this to me, please? I'm being serious, by the way.

Litigation is expensive. If you have deeper pockets than your opponent, sometimes you can use that fact to force an un-just result.

(Developers CAN get screwed by this; we had a case on Cape Cod recently, guy was building out a half-dozen units, his first three buyers basically sued him long and hard enough he couldn't afford to build the remaining units, which is where you normally make your profit...and no bank would loan to him, being in the middle of a lawsuit and all. Doesn't help that our Land Court has been understaffed for years)

PunGent:kazikian: Can someone explain to me how anyone can "force" a sale? I mean, if you own the property, and simply refuse to sell no matter the offer, how can anyone take that property? (Except for cases of imminent domain, which this was not.) Can someone explain this to me, please? I'm being serious, by the way.

Litigation is expensive. If you have deeper pockets than your opponent, sometimes you can use that fact to force an un-just result.

(Developers CAN get screwed by this; we had a case on Cape Cod recently, guy was building out a half-dozen units, his first three buyers basically sued him long and hard enough he couldn't afford to build the remaining units, which is where you normally make your profit...and no bank would loan to him, being in the middle of a lawsuit and all. Doesn't help that our Land Court has been understaffed for years)

I think if all three of one's first customers take legal action against you, that's darwin's way of saying you suck at what you do and shouldn't do that anymore.

kazikian:Can someone explain to me how anyone can "force" a sale? I mean, if you own the property, and simply refuse to sell no matter the offer, how can anyone take that property? (Except for cases of imminent domain, which this was not.) Can someone explain this to me, please? I'm being serious, by the way.

Bank/Insurance Company wants to buy 150+ year old property to turn into boutique hotel, offers money to buy building.

Boutique hotel is operated by a non-profit women's shelter, they aren't driven by money as a primary concern. The building isn't for sale at any price, since it's pretty well suited for their needs and any replacement would be time consuming and probably less suited in the long run to their needs.

Bank/Insurance Company gets a big "Does Not Compute" at the idea of "not for sale at any price".

Non profit gets Federal assistance in renovations to the 150+ year old building. Pretty routine for a non-profit, since they often get various credits and grants for large scale projects. The building is doubtless old enough to need some work, but they've got funding lined up to take care of that without a problem.

Bank/Insurance Company files lawsuits saying the non-profit shouldn't be getting those credits. They use the full weight of their legal department to file lawsuits contesting the non-profit getting the Federal assistance. The lawsuits are thinly disguised harassment, but it's enough to force the non-profit into an expensive and years-long legal fight. They already didn't have vast cash reserves, since they needed the money for the renovations.

After several years of litigation, the non-profit org is pretty much out of money thanks to its legal fees in dealing with the nuisance suits from the Insurance Company. No Judge has taken their side, but they've dragged it through the courts for years, which is all they needed. The Insurance Company had deeper pockets for an extended lawsuit. Even if the facts of the case are blatantly on the non-profit's side, they didn't have the money to see the case through to the end.

So, with the non-profit now on the edge of bankruptcy, the Insurance Company says they'll drop their suit if the non-profit will sell them the building. The non-profit is basically left with the choice to sell the building or completely shut down. They sell the building, contingent upon handing it over when their replacement building is built. Unfortunately, they can't afford to build the replacement in the same neighborhood, they can only afford to build a new shelter in a poor neighborhood with low property values.

One of the reasons the shelter was so successful it that it was out of the crime-ridden low-rent neighborhoods, it removed the women from the environment and people that caused their cycle of abuse. This is now gone. More women will be abused or return to prostitution (and possibly drugs and other crime) so an insurance company can have a boutique hotel as a side investment.

Republicans get a stiffy because corporations have been allowed to do whatever they want to whoever they want, and "the poors" get shafted in the name of the "free market", which is what they want for America.

Dadoody:FormlessOne: This is the world Republicans want for all of us - the best small government money can buy. Can't afford to fight? Well, you're not God's chosen.

When Republicans refer to "small government", they're referring to resources, not size - a "big government" can fight the rich and win, because a "big government" has the resources to do so. A "small government" has little choice but to do what the rich want, because the rich have the resources to ensure that their will is done. This is a lovely example of what Republicans call "small government."

Couple that with "prosperity gospel," and you now know why so many Christians are right-wing - money makes you one of God's chosen. If you're rich, you must be morally superior, because God has given you so much in return for your actions. The bank is clearly on the side of righteousness, and the battered women's shelter clearly on the side of immorality, so the bank feels no shame in calling them "recovering prostitutes" - he's the one, after all, doing God's work, as evinced by his bulging bank account. Besides, a new building in a neighborhood more befitting their lowly station is being provided for them, at their cost - it's as God wills it.

Protesting isn't enough. People need to pull their money out of this bank. Revocation of prosperity is the only tool the rich understand, especially the religious rich.

wow.... look at Barking Unicornshow up to white knight for this human piece of shiat. Welcome to my ignore list you sorry excuse for an actual person. While it's bad enough that people like you actually exist, at least I won't have to read your garbage ever again. I hope you're among the first against the wall when people finally get tired of this shiat.

Bender The Offender:jim32rr: Bender The Offender: jim32rr: FTFA: The women living at the Anna Louise will stay there until a new building for them is finished, in about two years. So what's the problem again?

Exactly, what's the problem with exploiting the legal system to steal property from a nonprofit that doesn't want to sell? The poors should've just given their property up to their fiscal betters.

If you have to ask such a stupid farking question, you lack the moral character and human decency to understand the answer.

You sound sad, angry .... much like the women in the article. Perhaps we could find new, more comfortable shelter for you

Thanks for proving my point. You think it's funny to make jokes at the expense of the neediest people in our society. Poverty, abuse, deprivation, and all of the horrors that go along with it are the meat of comic genius like yourself. If you want to find me a new shelter to volunteer in, you're more than welcome to. I already provide basic healthcare services for 3 in the area, but if you know of another, I'm more than willing to offer up more of my time. Our practices provides over $100k a month in free services and we are always willing to help out where we can. Oh, did you think it would be shameful to attend a shelter? do you think there's something inherently insulting about people in need? Of course you did, or course you did. You're a real class act, right from your own pathetic attempts at wit, we can all see what a decent and classy person you are.

We were playing Jump To Conclusions and no one told me. I was raised in the town of Harvey, IL (Look it up) and stayed until 15 years old or so. My Mom was left with 3 kids when my Father decided to find himself or some BS and hauled ass, My Mom put herself through school with her Navy benefits while working part time. I can remember going shopping for my Mom with food stamps, I worked any odd job I could as a teen to throw money into the family pot, most of my weekends involved standing outside the local grocery store and carrying grocery bags to women's cars for tips, I also remember sleeping in the car with my family for 2 days and then 4 or 5 days in a church basement while our Landlord was deciding rather to renew our lease or not. Not a bad childhood, some of my friends in the neighborhood had a much rougher road then me

As for now I have my own company, 10% percent of the profits are donated to organizations that help other disabled Veterans and their families. Besides my regular commercial clients my company also works with non-profits in a handful of states to help them reduce their overhead costs at no expense to the non-profit.

Back to the Women's Shelter, in that changing neighborhood had they not been bought at this time something else would have happened to change the ownership of the building to someone else and maybe they would not have a new facility to move into was my point

Got a citation on that? This article's *saying* that he repeatedly referred to them as such isn't exactly compelling evidence. But string him up for non-cited, probably indirect, potentially non-malicious remarks that are accurate, right? Because feelings.

I work for one of the largest banks in the country. Every year we have to take a mandatory ethics course. And each year it reminds me how the industry placates the governing bodies through meaningless exercises while CEO's and Execs still screw over everyone they can for another buck. As if it's my ethics that created various financial bubbles, and artificially set advantageous lipor values.

I took mandatory FCPA training. The takeaway from the online course was the little guy (gal) who watched her coworker make a minor payoff got smashed into pulp. The VP who enabled an eight figure contract with six figure bribes was too big to fail.

Being in the "small enough to fail" category I made a note to myself that if I were ever stationed overseas and given contracting responsibility, I should try not to get caught making illegal payoffs.